Which High Court Can You Approach? Article 226(2), 'Cause of Action' and the Criminal Writ Petition

A recurring jurisdictional puzzle — whether a civil-law test borrowed for writ petitions fits criminal cases such as FIR quashing — is back in judicial focus, and the answer turns on how Article 226(2) interacts with the territorial-trial rules of the BNSS.

Legal commentary has revisited a recurring jurisdictional puzzle: when someone seeks a writ from a High Court to quash an FIR, resist arrest, or challenge a search registered in another state, which High Court has territorial jurisdiction? The issue arises because Article 226 petitions borrow a civil-law “cause of action” test, even though the underlying matter is criminal.

Article 226(1) lets a High Court issue writs within its territory; Article 226(2) extends this to where the “cause of action, wholly or in part,” arises, even if the authority is seated elsewhere. This civil-law test — requiring a “real and substantial connection” — must now be applied to criminal facts like FIR registration or arrest location, even though the BNSS (Sections 197–204) already has its own, more precise rules on place of trial, including for offences committed via electronic communication (Section 202).

Exam takeaway: remember Article 226(1) vs 226(2), the “cause of action” test’s civil origin, and that BNSS provisions (esp. Sections 197, 199, 202) independently govern territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases — a useful contrast for polity and criminal procedure questions.